FTA Under chancel repair liability, homeowners living within the parishes of churches built before 1536 can be held liable for costs. The law dates back to the time of Henry VIII and, although actual claims are rare, in 2009 Adrian and Gail Wallbank from Warwickshire sold their home after losing an 18-year legal case and being left with costs of £250,000.

They lost? I guess sanity in the face of the theocratic nonsense of a bygone era is too much to hope for. Next thing you know the Queen will start having heads removed from people she doesn't like because, hey, she's still the Queen.

generallyso:FTA Under chancel repair liability, homeowners living within the parishes of churches built before 1536 can be held liable for costs. The law dates back to the time of Henry VIII and, although actual claims are rare, in 2009 Adrian and Gail Wallbank from Warwickshire sold their home after losing an 18-year legal case and being left with costs of £250,000.

They lost? I guess sanity in the face of the theocratic nonsense of a bygone era is too much to hope for. Next thing you know the Queen will start having heads removed from people she doesn't like because, hey, she's still the Queen.

Guess, what? England has an established church. That's what establishment of religion means (the thing banned by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution). While they no longer enforce attendance or tithing, everyone living in the parish is a member of the parish whether they like it or not. It sounds like the only problem is uncertainty about the costs; this is really no different than being forced to pay for sidewalk improvements or other infrastructure. Churches built before 1536 are a tourist draw, so it's not like the locals get nothing from having it up and running, even if they're not Church of England.

Those costs of £250,000 were legal bills; they'd have been better off just paying for the church repairs.

The solution to automatically expiring laws would be a recodification process. Recodification is a big bill saying, "the contents of the 2013 statute book are now law." After recodification the law is a huge bill passed in 2014 that just happens to be very similar to the cumulative effect of all laws passed up to 2014. This practice is routine in some states. It shields old laws from challenges based on defects in their original passage. It would also work to avoid an expiration date on laws. A successful expiration amendment would have to anticipate that response.

I recall reading related stories over the years concerning ancient 'Land Grants' in England and the periodic concern that the current heir to the original grants could 'activate' them and claim their ancient rights.

Apparently, huge chunks of land were granted to churches and the very wealthy centuries ago and somehow forgotten about until long after such land became heavily developed.

Now, we have a bunch of old laws that are technically still enforceable, but not worth the trouble. Such as the bird bath in a city park, off limits to all other birds but Robins. Then the still active law requiring a man to walk about 80 feet ahead of a motor car carrying a flag and a whistle, to warn horses of its approach so as not to scare the horses. At night, he needs to carry a lantern.

I would think the Parliament could pass a sweeping law voiding all inactive 'grants'.

When Henry Vlll sold the monasteries' land, the liability to pay for the repair of the chancel remained with the land sold.

That can be changed with the sweep of a pen. However, even here in the US, we have something a bit similar: mineral rights. A lot of states sell you your land, but retain the rights to mine it out from under you if something valuable is discovered. Kind of like Centralia, that abandoned coal town where the mines caught fire and couldn't be put out. The mines went under homes and through the city and as the fires raged, caused the land to collapse, basements to fill with poison gasses and great cracks to open up all over the place.

The government moved the residents out -- but there are still a couple of folks living there who refuse to move.

I do recall when the British wealthy, whose ancestors had been granted huge tracts of land by the crown, moved to register their claims. It caused the same type of panic.

I mean, here, we have big tracts of land placed on the endangered list, not to be developed for various ecological reasons, that, seemingly over night during the housing boom, turned into high end housing units. Seems that what went on the list decades ago, could be removed from it if the money was right.

shtychkn:Jebdiahbob: It looks like a lot of the people are less concerned about the potential cost but are more concerned about the fact that 1) it isn't always disclosed that the property is liable and 2) it's affecting the property values once the churches exercise that right.

If this law is on the books I've got to imagine that there is some equally obscure law to get around it as well. Something like donating a sheep to the local reverend or some farcical aquatic ceremony where a watery tart hands you a sword.

Valiente:In Britain, the church is the state, and the inhabitants are subjects, not citizens.

How do you like the old woman on the money now, my cousins?

Also, I speak Brit, but I have never heard the term "advice surgery", which I can only guess is some sort of public meeting, or as the Americans in the northeast call it, a "town hall".

Being a British person myself and having no understanding if WTF you mean by "the church is the state", can you clarify what you think is going on? Do you think the Church of England runs the UK? What about Scotland, where the Church of Scotland is the main religion (amongst those who dabble in that sort of thing)? Seriously, I have NO idea what you mean by that. I'm atheist, does that mean I'm not allowed to vote?

It is what it is:Just ask the government to refund all of the property tax you & your ancestors were paying on the churches land for the last 500 years. Donate what the church is asking for from that and write it off as a tax receipt.

And the great part is... when winter rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.

Spiralmonkey:Valiente: In Britain, the church is the state, and the inhabitants are subjects, not citizens.

How do you like the old woman on the money now, my cousins?

Also, I speak Brit, but I have never heard the term "advice surgery", which I can only guess is some sort of public meeting, or as the Americans in the northeast call it, a "town hall".

Being a British person myself and having no understanding if WTF you mean by "the church is the state", can you clarify what you think is going on? Do you think the Church of England runs the UK? What about Scotland, where the Church of Scotland is the main religion (amongst those who dabble in that sort of thing)? Seriously, I have NO idea what you mean by that. I'm atheist, does that mean I'm not allowed to vote?

The Church of England is not separate from the government like religions are in the United States.

Yes, the UK has limited the influence of the church compared to the past. But there is still a connection between the government in England and the Church of England.

shtychkn:Spiralmonkey: Valiente: In Britain, the church is the state, and the inhabitants are subjects, not citizens.

How do you like the old woman on the money now, my cousins?

Also, I speak Brit, but I have never heard the term "advice surgery", which I can only guess is some sort of public meeting, or as the Americans in the northeast call it, a "town hall".

Being a British person myself and having no understanding if WTF you mean by "the church is the state", can you clarify what you think is going on? Do you think the Church of England runs the UK? What about Scotland, where the Church of Scotland is the main religion (amongst those who dabble in that sort of thing)? Seriously, I have NO idea what you mean by that. I'm atheist, does that mean I'm not allowed to vote?

The Church of England is not separate from the government like religions are in the United States.

Yes, the UK has limited the influence of the church compared to the past. But there is still a connection between the government in England and the Church of England.

/my switching between UK and England was on purpose

There is no connection between the church and the government. Are you confused by the difference between state and government? The queen is head of state and nominal head of the Church of England. The government runs the country. No overlap. In the UK any politician professing a love of Jeebus or making any reference to faith would rightly be ridiculed as religion has no place in politics - good luck with getting elected to any office in the US without claiming to be a devout Christian.

Having an established religion doesn't make it a theocracy. The claim that the church is the state is wrong. Just wrong. As is the "subject" claim. You can apply for citizenship of the UK, not subjecthood. My passport says I'm a citizen, not a subject. So all in all, everything Valiente said is wrong.

No Such Agency:GoldDude: Getting together with your neighbours and hiring an arsonist to take care of the crumbling churches would be a cheaper option.

Too bad these guys are dead or in jail:

[www.anus.com image 300x208]

(bonus: hotlinked from "anus.com")

Damn, you beat me to it! Yeah, read 'Lords Of Chaos' last year, and they definitely would've burned the place down! Varg is actually out of jail, as is Faust (his new band, Tsunami Of Blood, is pretty kickass. Just like Varg, he's a POS but I love their music nonetheless).

Spiralmonkey:shtychkn: Spiralmonkey: Valiente: In Britain, the church is the state, and the inhabitants are subjects, not citizens.

How do you like the old woman on the money now, my cousins?

Also, I speak Brit, but I have never heard the term "advice surgery", which I can only guess is some sort of public meeting, or as the Americans in the northeast call it, a "town hall".

Being a British person myself and having no understanding if WTF you mean by "the church is the state", can you clarify what you think is going on? Do you think the Church of England runs the UK? What about Scotland, where the Church of Scotland is the main religion (amongst those who dabble in that sort of thing)? Seriously, I have NO idea what you mean by that. I'm atheist, does that mean I'm not allowed to vote?

The Church of England is not separate from the government like religions are in the United States.

Yes, the UK has limited the influence of the church compared to the past. But there is still a connection between the government in England and the Church of England.

/my switching between UK and England was on purpose

There is no connection between the church and the government. Are you confused by the difference between state and government? The queen is head of state and nominal head of the Church of England. The government runs the country. No overlap. In the UK any politician professing a love of Jeebus or making any reference to faith would rightly be ridiculed as religion has no place in politics - good luck with getting elected to any office in the US without claiming to be a devout Christian.

Having an established religion doesn't make it a theocracy. The claim that the church is the state is wrong. Just wrong. As is the "subject" claim. You can apply for citizenship of the UK, not subjecthood. My passport says I'm a citizen, not a subject. So all in all, everything Valiente said is wrong.